Trial reportBMJ paediatrics open2023
Impact of a clinical decision support system on paediatric drug dose prescribing: a randomised within-subject simulation trial.
Trial report in BMJ paediatrics open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the impact of an indication-based, patient-specific prescribing tool on prescribing errors in paediatrics: a non-randomised, before-and-after study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- How Consistent are Anti-Infective Drug Dosing Recommendations Across Three European Paediatric Formularies?Paediatric drugs · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug dosing errors are among the most frequent causes of preventable harm in paediatrics. Due to the complexity of paediatric pharmacotherapy and the working conditions in healthcare, it is not surprising that human factor is a well-described source of error. Thus, a clinical decision support system (CDSS) that supports healthcare professionals (HCP) during the dose prescribing step provides a promising strategy for error prevention.
methodsThe aim of the trial was to simulate the dose derivation step during the prescribing process. HCPs were asked to derive dosages for 18 hypothetical patient cases. We compared the CDSS PEDeDose, which provides a built-in dose calculator to the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) used together with a pocket calculator in a randomised within-subject trial. We assessed the number of dose calculation errors and the time needed for calculation. Additionally, the effect of PEDeDose without using the built-in calculator but with a pocket calculator instead was assessed.
resultsA total of 52 HCPs participated in the trial. The OR for an erroneous dosage using the CDSS as compared with the SmPC with pocket calculator was 0.08 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.36, p<0.001). Thus, the odds of an error were 12 times higher while using the SmPC. Furthermore, there was a 45% (95% CI 39% to 51%, p<0.001) time reduction when the dosage was derived using the CDSS. The exploratory analysis revealed that using only PEDeDose but without the built-in calculator did not substantially reduce errors.
conclusionOur results provide robust evidence that the use of the CDSS is safer and more efficient than manual dose derivation in paediatrics. Interestingly, only consulting a dosing database was not sufficient to substantially reduce errors. We are confident the CDSS PEDeDose ensures a higher safety and speeds up the prescribing process in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.